Re: [MBONED] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-mboned-ieee802-mcast-problems-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

I see that the -12 was posted, but it still refers to the obsolete RFC 4601
(so I can't clear my Discuss yet).

-Ben

On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 08:48:34AM -0800, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 05:51:13AM -0800, Alvaro Retana wrote:
> > On January 8, 2020 at 5:20:00 PM, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker wrote:
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > DISCUSS:
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Section 9 says that "[RFC4601], for instance, mandates the use of IPsec
> > > to ensure authentication of the link-local messages in the Protocol
> > > Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM) routing protocol" but I
> > > could not find where such use of IPsec was mandated. (I do recognize
> > > that a similar statement appears almost verbatim in RFC 5796, but RFC
> > > 5796 seems focused on extending PIM-SM to support ESP in additon to the
> > > AH usage that was the main focus of the RFC 4601 descriptions, and does
> > > not help clarify the RFC 4601 requirements for me.) The closest I found
> > > was in Section 6.3.1 of RFC 4601: "The network administrator defines an
> > > SA and SPI that are to be used to authenticate all link-local PIM
> > > protocol messages (Hello, Join/Prune, and Assert) on each link in a PIM
> > > domain" but I do not think that applies to all usage of PIM-SM. Am I
> > > missing something obvious?
> > 
> > It looks like everyone (including me) missed the nit that rfc4601 has
> > been Obsoleted by rfc7761.  One of the changes between the two is that
> > rfc7761 removed the requirement for authentication using IPSec "due to
> > lack of sufficient implementation and deployment experience".
> 
> I think Roman did pick up on the obsoletion, but it was buried in the nits
> at the end of his ballot position.
> 
> As you rightly note, this does supersede my specific objection to this
> document (though I still would like to know which part of RFC 4601 made
> this requirement, if only to know whether or not to file an erratum on
> 5796).
> 
> > This is what rfc7761 says about authentication:
> > 
> >    6.3.  Authentication
> > 
> >       This document refers to RFC 5796 [8], which specifies mechanisms to
> >       authenticate PIM-SM link-local messages using the IPsec Encapsulating
> >       Security Payload (ESP) or (optionally) the Authentication Header
> >       (AH).  It also points out that non-link-local PIM-SM messages (i.e.,
> >       Register and Register-Stop messages) can be secured by a normal
> >       unicast IPsec Security Association (SA) between two communicants.
> 
> And that seems like a good treatment of the situation.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ben
>